Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 671B | — |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 128k | 200k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $1.10 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $4.40 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.55 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.27SiliconFlow | $1.10OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.00SiliconFlow | $4.40OpenAI |
| $104SiliconFlow · fp8 | $440OpenAI list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 68.4% | 49.3% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 57.8% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 74.9% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.7% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Release date | Sep 22 2025 | Jan 31 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsClaude Haiku 5.5o3-minivsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGemini 4 Argono3-minivsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMuse Spark Openo3-minivsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGrok 4.7o3-minivsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMistral Large 4o3-minivsMistral Large 4DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsKimi K3o3-minivsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus leads o3-mini on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Verified). Only o3-mini has a verified first-party API price: $1.10 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus. o3-mini shipped 234 days before DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 128k (DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus) vs 200k (o3-mini). DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus is open weight, while o3-mini is closed.
On SWE-Bench Verified, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus leads at 68.4% vs o3-mini at 49.3%.